O grupo no qual você está postando é um grupo da Usenet. As mensagens postadas neste grupo farão com que o seu e-mail fique visível para qualquer pessoa na internet.
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/bisander.htm Interesting: A study by the British Interplanetary Society in 1937 on how to go to the moon using existing technology. Solid rockets only.
On Nov 8, 10:55 am, Frogwatch <dboh...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> http://www.astronautix.com/craft/bisander.htm > Interesting: A study by the British Interplanetary Society in 1937 on > how to go to the moon using existing technology. Solid rockets only.
In article <40a7d061-d37f-4339-8e24-d21c25459301 @j4g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>, dboh...@mindspring.com says...
> http://www.astronautix.com/craft/bisander.htm > Interesting: A study by the British Interplanetary Society in 1937 on > how to go to the moon using existing technology. Solid rockets only.
However, interesting their design might be, they missed on a few key elements:
"Oddly, heating during ascent through the atmosphere was seen as a real problem, while re-entry on return was considered trivial ("accomplished in easy stages" via aerobraking). Therefore a jettisonable ceramic shield protected the spacecraft from heating expected to reach 1500 deg C during ascent, while no heat shield was considered necessary for return."
It seems odd that they could calculate the energy to escape the Earth's gravity and get to the moon, but not account for the same change in potential energy upon return to the Earth.
Had the technology of radio altimeters progressed sufficiently in 1937 to allow them a safe landing on the moon?
>> http://www.astronautix.com/craft/bisander.htm >> Interesting: A study by the British Interplanetary Society in 1937 on >> how to go to the moon using existing technology. Solid rockets only.
> The problem wasn't really to get TO the moon with the technology of the > 1930s/40s. The real problem was landing safely there, and getting back > to earth safely.
the only thing they could have done was launch the rocket. survinving the trip through space would have been problematic. but nice to know they were thinking about it. that's how it starts
> :http://www.astronautix.com/craft/bisander.htm > :Interesting: A study by the British Interplanetary Society in 1937 on > :how to go to the moon using existing technology. Solid rockets only.
> How were they going to land on the Moon on solids?
>> :http://www.astronautix.com/craft/bisander.htm >> :Interesting: A study by the British Interplanetary Society in 1937 on >> :how to go to the moon using existing technology. Solid rockets only.
>> How were they going to land on the Moon on solids?
> Briskly... ?
The small print says the spacecraft had liquid motors for fine control during lunar landings. Since the solid motors were small they could also adjust the number of solid motors firing.
> >> :http://www.astronautix.com/craft/bisander.htm > >> :Interesting: A study by the British Interplanetary Society in 1937 on > >> :how to go to the moon using existing technology. Solid rockets only.
> >> How were they going to land on the Moon on solids?
> > Briskly... ?
> The small print says the spacecraft had liquid motors for fine > control during lunar landings. Since the solid motors were small > they could also adjust the number of solid motors firing.
> >> :http://www.astronautix.com/craft/bisander.htm > >> :Interesting: A study by the British Interplanetary Society in 1937 on > >> :how to go to the moon using existing technology. Solid rockets only.
> >> How were they going to land on the Moon on solids?
> > Briskly... ?
> The small print says the spacecraft had liquid motors for fine > control during lunar landings. Since the solid motors were small > they could also adjust the number of solid motors firing.
> Andrew Swallow
I wonder if the BIS knew what the Germans and Goddard had done with liquids?
Jack Linthicum wrote: > On Nov 8, 7:44 pm, Andrew Swallow <am.swal...@btopenworld.com> wrote: >> tankfixer wrote: >>> In article <nvhef5tibukk9mrm5nct4gq4819ilft...@4ax.com>, >>> fjmcc...@gmail.com says... >>>> Frogwatch <dboh...@mindspring.com> wrote: >>>> :http://www.astronautix.com/craft/bisander.htm >>>> :Interesting: A study by the British Interplanetary Society in 1937 on >>>> :how to go to the moon using existing technology. Solid rockets only. >>>> How were they going to land on the Moon on solids? >>> Briskly... ? >> The small print says the spacecraft had liquid motors for fine >> control during lunar landings. Since the solid motors were small >> they could also adjust the number of solid motors firing.
>> Andrew Swallow
> I wonder if the BIS knew what the Germans and Goddard had done with > liquids?
They most certainly didn't.
When assessing the operational characteristics of the V2 rockets Professor Lindermann (Later Lord Cherwell) used the BIPS figures for solid fuel rockets because he didn't know about liquid fueled rockets, which is why he said they couldn't be built...
-- William Black
"Any number under six"
The answer given by Englishman Richard Peeke when asked by the Duke of Medina Sidonia how many Spanish sword and buckler men he could beat single handed with a quarterstaff.
On Nov 8, 10:55 am, Frogwatch <dboh...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> http://www.astronautix.com/craft/bisander.htm > Interesting: A study by the British Interplanetary Society in 1937 on > how to go to the moon using existing technology. Solid rockets only.
But the reason the Brits didn't go is because the moon landing had everything to do with retro-rockets, space suits, pure inspiration, and 2000 ton launch pad crawlers, and had nothing to do with 1937 technology and rockets.
On Nov 9, 1:23 pm, "zzbun...@netscape.net" <zzbun...@netscape.net> wrote:
> On Nov 8, 10:55 am, Frogwatch <dboh...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >http://www.astronautix.com/craft/bisander.htm > > Interesting: A study by the British Interplanetary Society in 1937 on > > how to go to the moon using existing technology. Solid rockets only.
> But the reason the Brits didn't go is because the moon landing had > everything > to do with retro-rockets, space suits, pure inspiration, and 2000 > ton launch > pad crawlers, and had nothing to do with 1937 technology and > rockets.
Or for the marines, the difference between Engineering and The Marines, is not just a matter of getting the job done, it's a matter of getting a job with a Super Helicopter, rather than just a Navy Theme Park.
On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 14:47:09 +0100, Alan Lothian <alanloth...@mac.com> wrote:
>Cavorite, Fred. Cavorite. We'd have it now if the international >conspiracy of
><NO CARRIER>
I'm afraid this is all based on a mistaken verbal brief given to the Society of Caledonian Aviation Engineers (all three of them) by a homesick clerk in the Air Ministry who launched into a karaoke version of 'Fly Me to Dunoon' at the wrong moment. Alan will, I am sure, oblige with the second verse if I start him off;
'Fly me to Dunoon Let me hang aroon' in bars I'll burn this Celtic scarf an' then We'll all be seein' stars.'
Gavin Bailey
--
Solution elegant. Yes. Minor problem, use 25000 CPU cycle for 1 instruction, this why all need overclock Pentium. Dumbass. - Bart Kwan En
On Nov 9, 1:23 pm, "zzbun...@netscape.net" <zzbun...@netscape.net> wrote:
> On Nov 8, 10:55 am, Frogwatch <dboh...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >http://www.astronautix.com/craft/bisander.htm > > Interesting: A study by the British Interplanetary Society in 1937 on > > how to go to the moon using existing technology. Solid rockets only.
> But the reason the Brits didn't go is because the moon landing had > everything > to do with retro-rockets, space suits, pure inspiration, and 2000 > ton launch > pad crawlers, and had nothing to do with 1937 technology and > rockets.
Well the infrastructure that was needed was huge. In the 1930s, Britain was very serious about restricting people who wanted to be rocketeers. Arthur C. Clarke wrote some things about that. Meanwhile the Germans were funding people like Von Braun and building facilities for them to test things, and funding them as they scaled up. The US had rocket designers like Goddard but they were not made as big a priority. "Practical use" things like the smaller rocket that became the bazooka were more the focus of the Army and such.
Then after the war it was the US and USSR that went big on the large scale rocket funding. Britain had a lot of other things to deal with as far as industry and recovery from the war, and while the USSR had a lot of issues after the war as well they had more sheer capacity to work with.
There was someone who wrote a book about Britian in an alternate history going all out on rockets after World War II, I forget the name but it is pretty wild stuff from the "what if" point of view.
> I'm afraid this is all based on a mistaken verbal brief given to the > Society of Caledonian Aviation Engineers (all three of them) by a > homesick clerk in the Air Ministry who launched into a karaoke version > of 'Fly Me to Dunoon' at the wrong moment. Alan will, I am sure, > oblige with the second verse if I start him off;
> 'Fly me to Dunoon > Let me hang aroon' in bars > I'll burn this Celtic scarf an' then > We'll all be seein' stars.'
In other words, Pòg mo thòin
???
(wrong Alan, I know, but I couldn't resist the feed line)
Frogwatch <dboh...@mindspring.com> wrote: >http://www.astronautix.com/craft/bisander.htm >Interesting: A study by the British Interplanetary Society in 1937 on >how to go to the moon using existing technology. Solid rockets only.
It's easy to propose a solution to problems you don't fully understand. And even though the BIS had some very smart fellows among their ranks - GIGO still applies. There was much that they didn't know they didn't know.
> On Nov 9, 1:23 pm, "zzbun...@netscape.net" <zzbun...@netscape.net> > wrote:
> > On Nov 8, 10:55 am, Frogwatch <dboh...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> > >http://www.astronautix.com/craft/bisander.htm > > > Interesting: A study by the British Interplanetary Society in 1937 on > > > how to go to the moon using existing technology. Solid rockets only.
> > But the reason the Brits didn't go is because the moon landing had > > everything > > to do with retro-rockets, space suits, pure inspiration, and 2000 > > ton launch > > pad crawlers, and had nothing to do with 1937 technology and > > rockets.
> Well the infrastructure that was needed was huge. In the 1930s, > Britain was very serious about restricting people who wanted to be > rocketeers. Arthur C. Clarke wrote some things about that. Meanwhile > the Germans were funding people like Von Braun and building facilities > for them to test things, and funding them as they scaled up. The US > had rocket designers like Goddard but they were not made as big a > priority. "Practical use" things like the smaller rocket that became > the bazooka were more the focus of the Army and such.
> Then after the war it was the US and USSR that went big on the large > scale rocket funding. Britain had a lot of other things to deal with > as far as industry and recovery from the war, and while the USSR had a > lot of issues after the war as well they had more sheer capacity to > work with.
> There was someone who wrote a book about Britian in an alternate > history going all out on rockets after World War II, I forget the name > but it is pretty wild stuff from the "what if" point of view.
And JATO or rocket-assisted take-off, Goddard's big project along with variable thrust liquid propellant rockets.
Dicey <a...@diceyhome.free-online.co.uk> wrote: > The Stig Baasvik Project wrote:
> > I'm afraid this is all based on a mistaken verbal brief given to the > > Society of Caledonian Aviation Engineers (all three of them) by a > > homesick clerk in the Air Ministry who launched into a karaoke version > > of 'Fly Me to Dunoon' at the wrong moment. Alan will, I am sure, > > oblige with the second verse if I start him off;
> > 'Fly me to Dunoon > > Let me hang aroon' in bars > > I'll burn this Celtic scarf an' then > > We'll all be seein' stars.'
> In other words, Pòg mo thòin
> ???
> (wrong Alan, I know, but I couldn't resist the feed line)
No offence intended, no offence taken, no offence. I hardly ever challenge chaps to duels these days. It's my eyesight.
Sadly, all I recall about Dunoon songs and stories is:
Dunoon knickers: wan Yank an' they're doon.
Or, that superb line quoted by a certain Scots pyschologist, a man of surpassing worthlessness:
Yank sailor in Glasgow to hoor: Honey, I'm going to give you something you never had before
Glasgow hoor to fellow hoor (if that's the right syntax, I leave it to others to decide)
Hey, Jessie, here's a fella wi' leprosy.
-- "The past resembles the future as water resembles water" -- Ibn Khaldun
If you wish to email me, try putting a dot between alan and lothian. Blueyonder is a thing of the past.
> On Nov 9, 1:23 pm, "zzbun...@netscape.net" <zzbun...@netscape.net> > wrote:
> > On Nov 8, 10:55 am, Frogwatch <dboh...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> > >http://www.astronautix.com/craft/bisander.htm > > > Interesting: A study by the British Interplanetary Society in 1937 on > > > how to go to the moon using existing technology. Solid rockets only.
> > But the reason the Brits didn't go is because the moon landing had > > everything > > to do with retro-rockets, space suits, pure inspiration, and 2000 > > ton launch > > pad crawlers, and had nothing to do with 1937 technology and > > rockets.
> Well the infrastructure that was needed was huge. In the 1930s, > Britain was very serious about restricting people who wanted to be > rocketeers. Arthur C. Clarke wrote some things about that. Meanwhile > the Germans were funding people like Von Braun and building facilities > for them to test things, and funding them as they scaled up. The US > had rocket designers like Goddard but they were not made as big a > priority. "Practical use" things like the smaller rocket that became > the bazooka were more the focus of the Army and such.
> Then after the war it was the US and USSR that went big on the large > scale rocket funding. Britain had a lot of other things to deal with > as far as industry and recovery from the war, and while the USSR had a > lot of issues after the war as well they had more sheer capacity to > work with.
> There was someone who wrote a book about Britian in an alternate > history going all out on rockets after World War II, I forget the name > but it is pretty wild stuff from the "what if" point of view.
I remember a "newscast" on That Was The Week That Was back in the 60s:
|
